Xavier Becerra

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, January 27, 2003, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall numbers 13 and 14. The votes I missed include rollcall vote 13 on Suspending the Rules and Agreeing to H. Res. 26, as Amended, Honoring the Contributions of Catholic Schools; rollcall vote 14 on Suspending the Rules and Agreeing to H. Res. 25, Supporting Awareness of Need for Youth Mentors. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 13 and 14.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I guess if we look at what was proposed by the Republican majority today versus what was proposed last year, this is generous because this proposal that we have before us provides 13 weeks of unemployment compensation for about a million Americans. Last year the Republicans proposed a 5-week extension not for every American in every State but in only three States. Three States last year would have received unemployment benefit compensation for some of its workers. Today, we are hearing more. That is absolutely correct. What has changed between that proposal, which was puny, to today's, which is a more realistic proposal? Well, we had 800,000 Americans cut off from all of their benefits on December 28; and every week since then about 90,000 Americans, in addition, have been losing their unemployment benefits. And between now and June, we are going to see about another 2.5 million Americans run out of unemployment benefits. So yes, it is more generous; but it does not take into account all of the millions of Americans who are going to be left out. And that is why we are saying, if nothing else, let us just have an up-or-down vote. Why is it that Americans who probably will never get a chance to see this debate will not know that the Republican majority of this House used the rules of the House to deny just a vote on whether we could extend the benefits to those other Americans who are going to be left out by this bill? If we lose, we lose. But give Americans a chance to know that we tried to help them as well. If we lose, so be it. Let us go back home and tell them that we could not get a majority of Members of Congress to support extending benefits to more than a million Americans who have run out of their benefits, who are seeking work and trying to put food on the table for their kids. Why can we not do this? We do this all the time. We put together amendments, as the gentleman from Washington said, in minutes. It would not even take that, because we have the language before us that we would need to extend those benefits to the more than 1 million Americans. I have to go home now to California and tell more than 109,000 Americans that we did not extend benefits to them, while some of their coworkers who are out of work did get it. It makes no sense. What can I tell them? Well, you lost your job a little earlier than did your colleague who is getting benefits. That makes no sense. Everyone is working hard. By the way, if we are talking about stimulus, instead of the President spending $700 billion-or-so over 15 years to give investors money to try to stimulate the economy, give it to those who are out of work who otherwise would be spending their money if they were working to put food on the table, buy the necessities, pay the rent, pay the mortgage. That would stimulate the economy instead of having them run out of those things that are essential to the economy. We can do it, there is no reason why we cannot, and the American public should know that we can.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat painful to say that we begin the 108th Congress today with new Members, a new majority in the Senate under Republican control, a Republican-controlled House, a Republican in the White House, and the first order of legislative business in the 108th Congress in the year 2003 is a plan which gags the minority party in the greatest democracy in the world to discuss something very important to millions of Americans who are working and about to lose their jobs or who are trying to work but cannot find a job. It is difficult to believe that today, January 8 of 2003, that in the House of Representatives, the people's House, we will not have an opportunity to discuss how we can provide unemployment benefits, emergency unemployment benefits to a million Americans who are struggling to find work. In my State of California, over 100,000 Americans are out of a job and are trying to find ways to put food on the table. But in this House of Representatives, I cannot put a proposal before my colleagues for a vote, whether it wins or loses, up or down, to decide whether or not those 1 million Americans, and more than 100,000 of them in my State of California, cannot see unemployment benefits extended for them as this proposal would do for some other Americans. Why Peter gets it and Paul does not, I do not understand, but that is the case, and when we look at the sad history of this, we see that a year ago, less than a year ago, a few months ago, Democrats put a proposal to do exactly what is on the table now, to extend benefits. At the end of last year, when we knew that people were losing work, when we knew that on December 28, close to a million people would run out of benefits and that we knew more than 80,000 people a week were becoming unemployed and without unemployment benefits, this Congress did try to do something, at least the Democratic side of the Congress. We had a proposal under the leadership of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) to provide those extended benefits, but we could not get it heard in this House for the same reason we cannot have the proposal heard today. We were gagged. It was bad then but it is shameful today that we begin a new session on what should be a bipartisan note for Americans who are looking for work, and we cannot do it. Yet just yesterday the President proposed close to $700 billion worth of tax cuts to help mostly wealthy investors, not folks who are out there working with their hands, but folks who invested money and can make money because the company happens to earn a little bit more on their stock. The folks who are willing to use their legs, their hands, their minds, who are right now out of work, will not get any assistance, not just one American, not just 1,000 Americans, but about a million Americans. I am going to go back to California. If we pass something I will be able to tell some of my Californians and colleagues there we got them that extended benefit that they needed to put food on the table, but I am going, in the same moment, to turn over to the next American in California and say, sorry, I could not even take a vote to see if I could extend their benefits. That is not the note we should start on, but that is the note that this Congress and the House of Representatives starts on. I believe we have an opportunity today to change that. We should not for us, not for politicians but for hardworking Americans who probably will not even listen to this debate, but this is still their House, this is the people's House, and we should do the people's work, and to leave today or tomorrow or this week, as we did back in December, without concluding the work for our working Americans who are seeking jobs is unfair, too little too late. Let us do something right. Let us do it for all Americans, not just for some.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, any nation engaged in a program of building weapons of mass destruction presents a danger to international peace and stability. Any leader who flouts the rule of law is a menace to liberty and democracy. Over the past couple of months the President has attempted to lay out the case for aggression against Iraq. I agree with the President that the actions of Saddam Hussein in his defiance and deception of the international community reveal a ``history of aggression.'' In my mind, the President has made a strong case that Iraq must disarm, pursuant to the United Nations resolutions enacted following the close of the Persian Gulf War. But the President did not convince me that we should go to war and go it alone. Nor has he made the case that we should change our longstanding policy and defy international law and commit to a first strike. The threat posed by Iraq is a threat which confronts the entire world, not just America. The voice of the community of civilized nations and the legitimacy to act on their collective word reside in the United Nations. It is through U.N. resolutions, crafted in substantial measure by the U.S., that we have the license to compel Iraq's compliance. And it should be through the U.N. that we should seek to enforce such compliance. This resolution before us gives the President authorization to send American troops into Iraq to strike unilaterally and, indeed, to strike first when he deems it appropriate. Congress has never before granted this extraordinary power to any previous President. We can address the threat posed by Saddam Hussein without expanding Presidential authority beyond constitutional standards. The Framers of our Constitution wisely assigned the power to commit America to war not to the President but to the people's democratic representatives in Congress. Our Founding Fathers knew from experience and we should remember today that a declaration of war is the ultimate act of humankind. It presumes to endow the declarant with the right to kill. In many instances, it amounts to a sentence of death, not just for the guilty but for the innocent as well, whether civilian or soldier. The President should approach Congress and ask for a declaration of war when and only when he determines that war is unavoidable. The resolution before us leaves the question of war open-ended by both expressing support for diplomacy and authorizing the President to use force when he feels it is the correct course of action. Yet, in his own words, President Bush indicated that war is not unavoidable. So why, then, is he insisting on being given now, today, the power to go to war? We are the lone superpower economically and militarily in the world. Our words have meaning, our actions have consequences beyond what we can see. The implications of a unilateral first strike authorization for war are chilling. A unilateral attack could lead the world into another dangerous era of polarization and create worldwide instability. It would also set a dangerous precedent that could have a devastating impact on international norms. Consider India and Pakistan, Armenia and Azerbaijan, Russia and Chechnya, Cyprus, Taiwan, Colombia, Northern Ireland, Central Africa. How might the people or the government in any of these countries which are engaged in or at the brink of hostilities interpret this resolution today? Why should not other countries adopt the President's unilateral and first strike policy to address conflicts or threats? Would not a unilateral attack galvanize other potential enemies around the globe to strike at the United States and our interests? In our efforts to focus on what the President described as a ``grave and gathering danger'' ten thousand miles away in Iraq, let us not lose sight of the dangers which are grave and present, not gathering but present, here at home: the al Qaeda plots targeting our airports, our water treatment facilities, our nuclear power plants, our agricultural crops. Just this Tuesday, CIA Director George Tenet told Congress that Saddam Hussein, if provoked by fears that an attack by the United States was imminent, might help Islamic extremists launch an attack on the United States with weapons of mass destruction. We must consider how our actions may impact on the safety of the American people. The answer may not always be what we expect. We must also ask: will the death and destruction it takes to eliminate a sovereign, albeit rogue, government (what the President has labeled ``regime change'') lead to goodwill by the Iraqi people toward America and Americans? Well, let us look at the record. During the Persian Gulf War of 1991, we dropped some 250,000 bombs, many of them ``smart'' bombs, over a 6- week period on Iraqi forces. That is close to 6,000 bombs per day. We deployed over 500,000 troops. The war cost over $80 billion. None of that money was spent on reconstruction in Kuwait, and certainly not in Iraq. And all of this is what it took simply to expel Saddam Hussein from tiny Kuwait, which has one-tenth the population and one twenty- fourth the landmass of Iraq. Today we are told that it would cost the U.S. $200 billion or more if we were to go to war with Iraq. That does not include any costs for reconstruction of post-war Iraq. No matter how ``smart'' or ``surgical,'' bombs will kill civilian non-combatants--children, mothers, the elderly. Two billion dollars in bombs, death and destruction does not sound like the wisest prescription for engendering Iraqi goodwill. I am eerily reminded of the infamous quote by an American military officer in the Vietnam War that ``we had to destroy the village to save it.'' Are we contending today that we need to destroy Iraq to save it? And what is our, and for that matter the world's, recent record on supporting postwar reconstruction? Ask the people of Bosnia and of Kosovo, and now ask the Afghanis. Certainly there are situations where the United States must prepare or be prepared to act alone. I voted in September 2001 to give the President that power to punish those who attacked this nation on 9/11. But the question is, are we at the point on the question of Iraq to go to war without international support? Because that is precisely what the resolution before Congress would authorize the President to do. Mr. Speaker, the President was clear in his speech to the nation on October 7. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is leading Iraq down a dangerous course. That is why the world should come together to confront this destabilizing situation and the United States should do all it can to encourage that effort. It is time for us to recognize that if we do this, we do it together. The President raised an additional point in his remarks of October 7, and that is that confronting the threat of Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. Indeed disarming Iraq and neutralizing Saddam Hussein's ability to share weapons of mass destruction with those who would do us harm is critical. However, should the President take us to war against Iraq, we will find ourselves fighting battles on three fronts: in Iraq, in Afghanistan and other terrorist ``hot spots'' where elements of al Qaeda and evidence related to 9/11 leads us, and finally, here at home. Do we have the resources to carry such a heavy commitment? Does Iraq divert us from winning the fight against terrorism and securing for the American people the safety they seek at home? Today, as we speak, in the neighborhoods immediately surrounding our nation's Capitol, parents are deciding whether to send their children to school. A calculating, cold-blooded murderer who has already killed 9 people and wounded 2 others in 2 weeks is roaming the streets. One of his victims, a 13-year-old boy, lies in critical condition from a bullet which savaged his abdomen. We must be equally committed to act to safeguard Americans from threats within our borders as we are from threats beyond our borders. Mr. Speaker, there are few votes as solemn and challenging to each of us and our democracy as a vote to declare war against another people. Can I look at my Maker, my family and the good people who elected me to speak for them and say: this is the cause for which I will cast my vote to sacrifice American lives? . . . the lives of innocent non- combatants? Is this truly the time to ask for the ultimate sacrifice from our men and women in uniform? In Bosnia and Kosovo, I could answer yes. Genocide was being committed as we breathed. On September 11, 2001, and indeed on December 7, 1941, America suffered premeditated, cold-blooded attacks which took thousands of mothers, sons, brothers and sisters from us. We needed to search for justice. But Mr. Speaker, I cannot with clear conscience answer the same way in regards to this resolution. That is why I cast a ``no'' vote. I urge my President and my country to move deliberatively and in concert with our partners in the community of nations as we address the threat that is Iraq.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, any nation engaged in a program of building weapons of mass destruction presents a danger to international peace and stability. Any leader who flouts the rule of law is a menace to liberty and democracy. In my mind, the President has made a strong case that Iraq must disarm, pursuant to the United Nations resolutions enacted following the close of the Persian Gulf War. But the President did not convince me that we should go to war and go it alone, nor has he made the case that we should change our longstanding policy and defy international law and commit to a first strike. The threat posed by Iraq is a threat which confronts the entire world, not just America. This resolution before us gives the President authorization to send American troops into Iraq to strike unilaterally and, indeed, to strike first. Congress has never before granted this extraordinary power to any previous President. We can address the threat posed by Saddam Hussein without expanding Presidential authority beyond constitutional standards. A declaration of war is the ultimate act of humankind. It presumes to endow the declarant with the right to kill. In many instances, it amounts to a sentence of death, not just for the guilty but for the innocent as well, whether civilian or soldier. In measurable respects, that is why the Framers of our Constitution wisely assigned the power to commit America to war not to the President but to the people's democratic representatives in Congress. The President should approach Congress and ask for a declaration of war when and only when he determines that war is unavoidable. The resolution before us leaves the question of war open-ended by both expressing support for diplomacy and authorizing the President to use force when he feels it is the correct course of action. Yet, in his own words, President Bush stated that ``war is not unavoidable.'' So why, then, is he insisting on being given now, today, the power to go to war? We are the lone superpower economically and militarily in the world. Our words have meaning, our actions have consequences beyond what we can see. The implications of a unilateral first strike authorization for war are chilling. A unilateral attack could lead the world into another dangerous era of polarization and create worldwide instability. It would also set a dangerous precedent that could have a devastating impact on international norms. Consider India and Pakistan, Armenia and Azerbaijan, Russia and Chechnya, Cyprus, Taiwan, Colombia, Northern Ireland, Central Africa. How might the people or the government in any of these countries which are engaged in or at the brink of hostilities interpret this resolution today? Why should not other countries adopt the President's unilateral and first strike policy to address conflicts or threats themselves? Would not a unilateral attack galvanize other potential enemies around the globe to strike at the United States and our interests? In our efforts to focus on what the President described as a grave and gathering danger thousands of miles away in Iraq, let us not lose sight of the dangers which are grave and present, not gathering but present, here at home: the al Qaeda plots targeting our airports, our water treatment facilities, our nuclear power plants, our agricultural crops. Just this Tuesday, CIA director George Tenet told Congress that Saddam Hussein, if provoked by fears that an attack by the United States was imminent, might help Islamic extremists launch an attack on the United States with weapons of mass destruction. We must consider how our actions may impact on the safety of the American people. The answer may not be always what we expect. We must also ask, will the death and destruction it takes to eliminate a sovereign, albeit rogue government, lead to good will by the Iraqi people toward America and Americans? Well, let us look at the record. During the Gulf War of 1999, we dropped some 250,000 bombs, many of them smart bombs, over a 6-week period on Iraqi forces. That is close to 6,000 bombs per day. We deployed over 500,000 troops. The war cost over $80 billion. None of that money was spent on reconstruction in Kuwait, and all of this is what it took simply to expel Iraq from tiny Kuwait. And what is our, and for that matter the world's, recent record on supporting post-war reconstruction? Ask the people of Bosnia and of Kosovo, and now ask the Afghanis. Certainly there are situations where the United States must prepare or be prepared to act alone. I voted in September, 2001, to give the President that power to punish those who attacked this Nation on September 11. But the question is, are we at the point on the question of Iraq to go to war without international support? Mr. Speaker, the President was clear in his speech on Monday. Iraq can lead us down a dangerous course, but I believe it is time for us to recognize that if we do this, we do this together, not alone. Let us vote for the separate resolution, go the right way and send a good message, not just to Iraq but to the rest of the world.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Madam Speaker, the House passed H.R. 5063, the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act of 2002 back on July 9, 2002, by a vote of 413 to zero. Last Thursday, October 3, the Senate approved H.R. 5063 with an amendment by unanimous consent and returned the same bill to the House. The bill before us is nearly identical to the Senate-passed version of H.R. 5063 with two key differences, as my friends and colleague from Illinois (Mr. Weller) has mentioned. Even with these differences, even with some differences in the bill that the Senate passed which I will explore in just a few moments in more detail in my remarks, I feel it is again important for us to support our military and pass H.R. 5557. During these times when we depend on our men and women in uniform to perform the highest levels of service, and we place them in harm's way, and I need not remind people today that we have troops remaining in Afghanistan, we have National Guard troops who are patrolling our borders, and in the days ahead we will be debating the merits of the President's call for the use of force against Iraq. But given all of that, these benefits that we are trying to provide under this legislation should go to our men and women in uniform without delay. The talk of war quickly reminds us of the willingness of our military men and women to place their lives at risk for each of us and for our country. The families deserve all the support and help we can provide. First, this bill provides much-needed relief for favorable tax treatment to death benefits that are paid on behalf of military personnel who die in the line of duty. While the deaths gratuity received by spouses is $6,000, only half of that amount, $3,000, is currently excluded for income for tax purposes. The other $3,000 in deaths benefits incongruously gets taxed. Under this bill, the full $6,000 that the surviving spouse of that man or woman who served our country who receive death benefits would be excluded from income for tax purposes. Secondly, the bill would ensure that military families do not lose the current law principle residence tax gains exclusion because of extended military assignments away from home. Under current law, any American who is a taxpayer receives exclusion from taxes of up to $250,000 as an individual or if you are married and you file jointly, up to $500,000 of any gain that is realized on the sale of your principal residence. So if Jane Smith were to purchase a home today for $100,000 and in something more than 2 years have the good fortune to sell it for $350,000, Jane Smith under our current tax law would not have to pay any taxes on the $250,000 profit on the sale of her principal residence. Many of our military personnel cannot receive this same military tax benefit because they are stationed away from home for an extended tour of duty. By being away from their home they fail to meet one of the criteria for qualifying for this tax exclusion. One of the requirements of our tax law is that the taxpayer must have lived, owned or used his residence as the principal residence for at least 2 of the previous 5 years prior to the sale or exchange of the property. H.R. 5557 addresses this inequity and extends appropriate consideration in tax treatment to our men and women in uniform. Madam Speaker, as I have said, this bill includes several positive changes from the original House-passed bill that were added by the Senate. Unfortunately, two important Senate-passed provisions are not included in this bill that I would like to mention because they also affect the livelihood of our men and women in uniform. First, the Senate had included an above the line deduction for overnight travel expenses of National Guard and Reserve members in their version of the bill. This provision would have benefited men and women who do not itemize in their tax filing, whether it is a 1040, a 1040EZ form; but for those men and women in uniform in the National Guard who do not take the time or do not have enough deductions to fill out and itemize those deductions, those individuals would not be able to benefit as a result of this legislation because the provision which had been included by the Senate to allow for an above the line deduction for these overnight travel expenses of National Guards and Reserve members has been excluded from this final version of the bill. Many of these men and women who would have benefited happen to be modest-income soldiers often with family and they would have benefited most from the extra money in their pocket. The Senate by the way passed this provision by unanimous consent; and unfortunately, as I said, it was not included in this version of the House bill. The second provision I would like to mention would have been the provision that would have paid for the cost of this legislation. We know from the Congressional Budget Office that we are projected to have somewhere on the order of a $300 billion deficit, not just for this year, but for several years to come. If you look at what we are doing these days to Social Security and Medicare and how we are beginning to use these monies from the trust fund because of the fact that we now are in deficit, it makes you wonder why we would want to put forward bills that were not paid for. Because every time we do that we take the chance of having to take out money from Social Security and from the Medicare trust funds. And that is not fair for those who are retired or preparing to retire. We should be responsible and pay for these bills that we have before us, especially this one because I believe every Member of this House would agree that we should do this for our men and women in uniform. A significant provision to pay for the cost of this legislation, which was included by the Senate but dropped by this House, would have really been something that I think most Americans would have agreed with almost immediately. And that would have been a provision that would have taken what we have in current law that says that an individual who relinquishes his or her U.S. citizenship or terminates his or her U.S. residency for the purpose of avoiding U.S. income tax estate or gift taxes right now is allowed to do that. But under the Senate provision we would have said to anyone who wished to become an expatriate for the purposes of avoiding taxes that he or she would not be able to escape his or her responsibilities. While we have men and women today, whether in Afghanistan or on our borders trying to protect us who are willing to put their lives in harm's way, we should not have individuals who are trying to relinquish their U.S. citizenship simply to avoid paying U.S. taxes to help us pay for the costs of providing our men and women the best equipment, the best training that they need in order to protect us. The provision that the Senate had included would have raised over $650 million over the next 10 years from these expatriates who are trying to evade U.S. taxation by giving up, relinquishing their U.S. citizenship. That would have been more than two times the amount of money necessary to pay for the cost of providing these benefits to our men and women in uniform, which we would all agree are good to provide. At the very time that we are asking our military to be prepared to defend America, it seems wholly inconsistent to allow those people who should help us pay for the cost of supporting our men and women to escape any taxation and to go abroad by relinquishing their U.S. citizenship and avoid that tax. Madam Speaker, it is important that we again look at this legislation and pass it as quickly as possible. The Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act is something that we must do now. We will send this bill to the Senate and we hope we get a quick signature from the President. I join my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Weller), and I believe every Member who would have an opportunity to speak on this legislation would say that it is time that we do this. I join some of my colleagues in also expressing some dismay that we are not paying for this legislation. As much as we need it, we should be responsible and pay for it. But what we should do is pass it now. For those reasons, Madam Speaker, I too stand in support of this legislation and urge my colleagues to also vote for it. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, October 1, 2002, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall numbers 424, 425, and 426. The votes I missed include rollcall vote 424 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended S. 434, providing Sioux Tribe Compensation; rollcall vote 425 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended H.R. 4125, the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 2002; and rollcall vote 426 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Res. 538, Honoring Johnny Unitas. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 424, 425 and 426.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Time and time again this year, rather than being in a posture to work with the other side of the aisle on issues that really matter, the budget, the economy, Social Security, health care, corporate responsibility, growing unemployment, education, instead of working on those issues, we find ourselves again debating imprudent and ill-timed public policy. Why imprudent? Well, we were told by President Bush upon his assumption of office that we would have massive surpluses so we could afford tax cuts which are weighted towards the wealthy. Today we are in deficits just 2 years into this presidency. Persistent recession, we were told last year this will only last a few months, we will be out of this. But we continue to be mired in recession. Regarding homeland security needs, 2 years ago when the President assumed office, he could not have expected that we would need to devote so many of our resources to protect the homeland and to deal with terrorist threats abroad. Education, we have a President who is reneging on his promise to fund education, even under his own bill which he calls the No Child Left Behind Act. On health care, we all know the stories of seniors having to make decisions between their rent or their prescription drugs. Ill-timed and ill-conceived. The timing could not be worse. We are talking about the possibility of this country engaging in war which will cost tens of billions of dollars. We are talking about an uncertain future for a country that has got a stock market that is plunging. And we talk about Americans who, today and every day, are losing their jobs because we have a government leadership that is not focusing on putting people back to work. Mr. Speaker, it seems evident that the priorities of my friends on the other side of the aisle, above all else, and at the expense of addressing the growing unemployment in this country, above all else and at the expense of providing money for our schools, above all else and at the expense of dealing with our growing health care crisis, that their priority is to ensure that upper-income Americans are ensured tax cuts a decade from now because this policy does not affect today or tomorrow or the day after. It is a decade from now. We have got sight of Iraq and Saddam Hussein now, and we are talking about debating, after we should have finished a budget for the Federal Government and we have not, we are talking about doing something 10 years from now for people whom we do not know what circumstances they will be in. Mr. Speaker, unemployment is increasing. More than 2.5 million people are unemployed today versus when President Bush took office. Two years ago, there was growing job creation. 1.7 million jobs were created 2 years ago. In 2000, 1.7 million jobs were created. In 2 years, we have lost virtually every single one of those jobs. Poverty is on the rise for the first time in more than 8 years. We have seen the ranks of the poor increase by over 1 million people. Incomes are falling for the first time since 1991. Hundreds of thousands of people are filing for bankruptcy. Almost 800,000 Americans filed for bankruptcy in the first half of the year 2002. Mortgage foreclosures are at a record high. The Federal budget deficit has increased. Mr. Speaker, we have work to do, and it is now, today, not in 10 years. It is for all Americans, not just wealthy Americans. Let us move on from here and do the real work of the Congress.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, a year ago I stood on this same floor of the people's House as the ruins still smoldered, the families still prayed and hoped, and all of us searched for ways to explain and prepare for the events that were to unfold. I will never forget that feeling of collective will which permeated this Congress to act to bring to justice those who committed these heinous crimes. America will never forget September 11th, 2001. In its tragedy, in its despicability, and in its lessons and impact on our way of life, it represents a singular moment of history. But what really do we remember about this event? And for today, the first anniversary of 9/11, perhaps the best question is: What should we remember? Mr. Speaker, my answer to that is: Let us remember the mothers and sons, the brothers and sisters, who perished on September 11, by remembering, today, to touch our own mother or son, our brother, our sister. We will never forget the firefighters, police officers, and volunteers--the heroes of September 11th. Let's prove that by not forgetting to extend a hand to our heroes in uniform, who protect us today. And let us commemorate 9/11 and honor our fallen by forever defending and living up to the ideals embodied in our Constitution. Our way of life may have been challenged, but it has not been compromised. We can prove to the world that in triumph or tragedy, we shall be a nation of laws. As I stood on the Floor of the House a year ago I asked: How do we explain this barbarous act of terrorism to our children? I did not believe then, nor do I believe now, that it is possible to really explain--to make sense of what happened--to our little ones. But I remember my words that followed and they right so very true to me today: ``From my words and my deeds, from the way our country prosecutes this unconscionable crime, I hope [our children] will learn and they will remember how this country lives and breathes its freedom and relentless search for justice. Perhaps, then, as our children grow older and wiser, they will be better prepared to preserve life and defend America's values.'' So, Mr. Speaker, as we move forward to complete the unfinished business of 9/11, let us remember our fallen, let us reflect on our tenacity and perseverance, and let us be the heroes in life that the victims of that day are in death. I remember that feeling of hope and justice back then, and I believe it will guide us through our mission now. May God bless America.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois, someone who represents the area where Mr. Cole lived for a time, for yielding me this time. I also would like to thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), and the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis) as well for this opportunity to bring forward a tribute to an individual who will go down in the annals of America as not just a grand entertainer but a decent and loving American. I want to extend my thanks to my colleagues from California, the 54 Members of the California delegation, which includes our two Senators, for their support of the Cole family in this effort to give Nat ``King'' Cole the recognition in this small way that he so deserves from this country. I would also like to thank the many other Members who signed onto this legislation as original cosponsors, many from the Congressional Black Caucus and other colleagues who recognized that it was fitting to pay tribute to this individual. Mr. Speaker, Nat ``King'' Cole is but a legend in America, but in our hearts he is someone who was able to touch us. H.R. 4797 is but a small token of appreciation that will forever give memory to his work and his love of this country. On South Western Avenue in Los Angeles, California, at the site of 265 South Western Avenue, those who happen to cross that busy street will have an opportunity to see the name of Nat ``King'' Cole, and, hopefully, they will appreciate what it takes to have one's name on the marquis of a post office, a building owned and operated by the people of this government and of this Nation. I cannot, however, nor can my colleagues, be the only ones to take credit for this opportunity to fete Nat ``King'' Cole. The fact that we are designating this post office after a legend is truly due to the people who live in and around the area of 265 South Western Avenue, because it is the folks who live in the community that surround this area who chose Nat ``King'' Cole as the person to pay tribute to and to name this post office after. I want to thank all of them for having stepped forward and in a very democratic process and deciding that it was best and most fitting to name this post office after a former resident of the area, and certainly a man that we will all remember. As my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), had said, Nat ``King'' Cole remains an icon as one of America's most beloved entertainers, even 37 years after his untimely death in 1965. His story is one of determination, courage and resilience. We recognize him today as one of the pioneers who left his mark in an industry that is now part of the fabric of Los Angeles. But his impression on our city and this Nation goes far beyond that. Nat ``King'' Cole was born Nathaniel Adams Coles in Montgomery, Alabama, in 1919 during that very regrettable period of segregation in this country. At the age of 4, Nat's father moved the Coles family, and it is Coles with an ``s,'' to Chicago, where his father accepted the pastorship of the True Light Baptist Church. Nat spent his childhood in the ghettos of the South Side of Chicago. But while Nat did not have the means to dream, he certainly had the capacity to do so, and, ultimately, live out those dreams. Perlina Coles, Nat's mother, directed the choir at the True Light Baptist Church, and she is the one that introduced the Coles children to music early on. Nat's musical talents exhibited themselves at a very, very young age. His first public performance was at the age of 4 in Chicago's Regal Theater. As a youngster, Nat would sing and play the organ at his father's church. His mother wanted Nat to become a classical pianist, but Nat's passion was jazz. Chicago was just the place to be for Nat ``King'' Cole to satisfy those tastes for jazz music. The city, at the time, hosted jazz talents like Louis Armstrong, Fats Waller, Earl Hines. And we should all recognize that not long ago, this past week, we lost Mr. Lionel Hampton, another great of American entertainment and art and a great jazz artist in his own right. Nat and his brother Eddie would go off as often as they could to hear jazz musicians play and to perform in Chicago's South Side, which was the African American community's center for jazz action in the 1930s. Even when Nat could not afford the price of admission, he would stand at the alley and listen right next to the stage door. During his teenage years, Nat ``King'' Cole was involved with several musical groups. He loved to perform and to share his music with others. In 1937, Nat and Eddie joined a revival of the review ``Shuffle Along.'' The show took the road after 6 weeks in Chicago. When the show suddenly folded, Nat found himself in Southern California, and that is where he decided to stay. This was the beginning of his life in the Los Angeles area, and we are all fortunate for his impression on Southern California. In the late 1930s, Nat ``King'' Cole was asked to form a small group to play at a Los Angeles nightclub. It was the owner of this nightclub, Mr. Bob Lewis, who gave Nat his new renowned nickname of ``King'' Cole, and he asked Nat to wear a crown of gold on stage. In fact, the group became known as the King Cole Trio, and it was led by Nat. While the gold-colored paper crown did not last, the name and its significance endures to this day. Many legends of entertainment got their break in Los Angeles and in Southern California, and that area proved to be fertile ground for Nat ``King'' Cole as well. The King Cole Trio developed a huge following. They found almost constant work in the Los Angeles area. And by the way, prior to booking the King Cole Trio, many of these nightclubs had never hired African American entertainers before. This trio went on to make some of their own recordings on what was known as the ``race record'' market, which is what made it possible for Nat ``King'' Cole to do the recordings. Because, remember, those were days when it was very difficult for talented men and women of African American descent to record and even to present their music and their talents before audiences. In 1943, Capitol Records, then a fledgling company, signed the King Cole Trio. The Trio's recording on that label of Straighten Up and Fly Right became a smash hit in 1944, and it appealed to not just black audiences but white audiences as well. Nat ``King'' Cole composed this song and based the lyrics on one of his father's sermons. The recording also brought jazz and popular music together. The other works of this Trio included For Sentimental Reasons and The Christmas Song, which emphasized Nat ``King'' Cole as a vocalist for the first time. Before that, Nat ``King'' Cole would sing only on occasion to add some flavor to the instrumental trio. In fact, if you look back at history, Nat would say that he never thought of himself much as a vocalist. And while we find that very hard to believe, that is what he thought. And not just then, but he held that view of his singing abilities even after he had become one of this country's most recognized singers. In fact, one of the world's most recognized singers. All of us would have to disagree at least on that point in his assessment of his vocal abilities. Most would say his voice was ``Unforgettable.'' Nat ``King'' Cole indeed was a man with talents that could not be contained by any particular genre. He slowly moved away from jazz and towards popular music. In 1955, the King Cole Trio disbanded, but Nat ``King'' Cole continued to find success with songs like Too Young, Answer Me My Love, Mona Lisa and, of course, Unforgettable. Mr. Cole sold more than 50 million records. He contributed so much to the success of Capitol Records that its headquarters became known as the ``House That Nat Built.'' His popularity would make him the first African American to have his own radio show and he would later also host his own TV shows. However, Nat ``King'' Cole did not always have an easy road. He was not immune to the intolerance of the mid 20th Century. Indeed, as we look at his impressive songbook, we cannot forget the struggles he had to overcome as an African American performer during that period in our Nation's history. In October 1956, Nat ``King'' Cole was given his own television show by NBC. This show received good ratings but failed to receive sponsorship and it was taken off the air after only one year. Most believed that the primary lack of interest by advertisers was due to Nat ``King'' Cole's race. But being taken off the air was not the only injustice Nat ``King'' Cole faced for being a successful black artist at the time. Nat faced physical intimidation and violence. In 1956, Nat returned to his native Alabama where his integrated group performed in front of a segregated audience in Birmingham. As a reaction, four members of the White Citizens Council attacked him on stage. But so determined was Nat ``King'' Cole, that even though he was hurt, he returned to the stage and finished his show. In Los Angeles, where we will honor him with a post office that carries his name, Nat was not immune to prejudice. When Nat and his family wanted to move into the exclusive Hancock Park section of Los Angeles, residents of the all-white community formed an association to keep him and his family out. But despite the threats, Nat ``King'' Cole purchased and moved into his English Tudor mansion in Hancock Park. Nat ``King'' Cole exemplifies the American dream. He endured the racism of the time and overcame the poverty to which he was born and worked to be one of the most beloved American entertainers of our time. Thirty-seven years after his untimely death from lung cancer on February 15, 1965, his legacy lives on. Modern popular music entertainers like Celine Dion continue to record songs made famous by Nat ``King'' Cole. With determination, courage, and resilience, Nat ``King'' Cole overcame tremendous obstacles to leave a lasting impression on music lovers of all ages and races. The Oakwood post office at 265 South Western Avenue in Los Angeles is Nat's post office. He lived within a few miles from the station and he is the pride of the community. I believe that this bill provides a fitting tribute to a man whose legacy is simply unforgettable. To the many residents and friends and neighbors who made this possible today, and who will, when we have a chance to see President Bush sign this legislation into law, be present to commemorate this post office after Nat ``King'' Cole, I say, ``Thank you so much for recognizing an American hero,'' and, ``Thank you so much for helping us in the people's House recognize the accomplishments of great Americans.'' Mr. Speaker, with great honor and deference, we recognize a man who will live far beyond our lifetime.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, in response to my friend and colleague's mention of this debate, I think we all have to make clear something about this debate right here and now: It is not those of us on this side of the aisle who brought this legislation forward, and it is not that we wish to constantly raise the point that these are tax measures that have tax cuts, that help principally wealthy individuals. That is the fact of this measure, that it will cost some $3 billion per year. But it is as if Congress learned nothing from the Enron, the Global Crossing, the Arthur Andersen, the WorldCom financial scandals that let so many fat cats become even fatter, that now we have a bill that would again benefit the wealthiest Americans at the expense of the majority of middle-class Americans. Really, at the end of this, if you take a look at this bill, this is an attempt to sneak vouchers through the back door for private schools again, at the expense of the 90 percent of our kids who are attending public schools. But the worst part, as you heard the gentlewoman from California mention beforehand, was that this is fiscally irresponsible. We are already running a deficit this year, when we were told by the Bush administration last year we would have a $165 billion surplus for this year. Yet we are in deficit. Now we want to take $3 billion per year once this is permanently extended and spend it to help mostly wealthy families who will take advantage of these tax breaks. That does not seem right, especially when you think that the President's own budget called for a cut of all funding for dropout prevention programs in our schools throughout the Nation, especially when you consider the fact that the President is unwilling and this House is unwilling to let us have before this body a debate on school construction monies so that our school districts throughout the Nation which are overcrowded could have the money to build the schools for all our kids, not just those that are wealthy. Why not do school construction measures like that which is cosponsored by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and a number of us that would say spend less than $1 billion per year to help school districts, leverage that into $25 billion over the next 10 years to help build schools, rather than give away $3 billion per year to mostly wealthy Americans. That is what this debate is about. It is about being fiscally responsible. All of us want to stand for our kids to have a fund to go to school. I have two of my three already in school, public school, and I want to make sure that they have the resources, along with every child that is in the classroom with them, to do the right thing and learn the right way. But this will help no one. In fact, it does not help anyone for the next 10 years. For those reasons, we should vote against this and do something meaningful for our children and our schools throughout the Nation. I urge my colleagues to vote against this measure.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, some call it trade promotion authority. Some call it fast track. I call it a missed opportunity. To be honest, and we should all be honest, we had a chance to meaningfully promote the elimination of abusive child labor practices by our trading partners. We had a chance to protect our domestic laws on the environment and on consumer protection. We had a chance to advance progressive trading practices by eliminating barriers and tariffs to productive trade among our international friends. But, instead, Mr. Speaker, this conference report favors foreign investors over U.S. citizens and businesses in this country. It extracts the teeth from the enforcement provisions meant to prevent unscrupulous foreign businesses willing to violate their country's laws and our laws, and this conference report sidesteps our responsibility to the displaced workers and impacted communities that we know will result from this legislation. Mr. Speaker, instead of doing something meaningful, we have punted. Instead of doing something right, we have walked through the back door to trade. Instead of doing what America believes we should, we dared not to lead. At a time when we find abuse by predators of children in this country to be offensive, we could have told the world we will lead and make sure that nowhere in the world will children be abused, whether by a predator or by any unscrupulous employer. At a time when we could have told our workers, if you are displaced, we will provide you with some benefits, including health care, what we do in this bill is we actually tell a worker we will offer you health care, but it will cost you more when you are unemployed as a result of this trade than it would have cost you when you were working. That is not leading. Mr. Speaker, we could come up with a good bill to lead. Let us dare to lead. Vote against this conference report.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, July 22, 2002, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall Nos. 324, and 325. The votes I missed include rollcall vote 324 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Con. Res. 439, Honoring Corinne ``Lindy'' Claiborne Boggs; and rollcall vote 325 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Res. 492, Expressing Gratitude for the 10-month World Trade Center Cleanup and Recovery Efforts. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 324 and 325.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, July 12, 2002, and Monday, July 15, 2002, due to official business in my District, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall No. 295, 296, 297, and 298. The votes I missed include rollcall vote No. 295 on passage of H.R. 4687, the National Construction Safety Team Act; rollcall vote No. 296 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 3482, the Cyber Security Enhancement Act; rollcall vote No. 297 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 4755, the Clarence Miller Post Office Building Designation Act; and rollcall vote 298 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as amended H.R. 3479, the National Aviation Capacity Expansion Act. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote Nos. 295, 296, 297, and 298.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, July 8, 2002, due to business in my District, I was unable to cast my floor vote on roll call numbers 283, and 284. The votes I missed include roll call vote 283 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 4609, the Rathdrum Prairie Spokane Valley Aquifer Study Act; and roll call vote 284 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as amended H.R. 2643, the Fort Clatsop National Memorial Expansion Act. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call votes 283 and 284.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the Republican side have never truly embraced Medicare. They opposed it in 1965, they have talked about letting it die on the vine, and they have described it as a Soviet- style program. In fact, what we have in this bill from my Republican colleagues and friends is a bill that moves us much closer to privatizing Medicare all together. To privatize Medicare is to ignore the lessons of the Enron scandal and the pension abuse that occurred as a result. To privatize Medicare is to turn back the clock to those bad old days before 1965 when the health care for our seniors was not guaranteed and left to the private sector. Under this Republican plan, a senior who is paying $250 a month in prescription drugs, and that is a lot of our seniors, would lose coverage, total coverage under this plan after August. So that, come September, come October, come November, come December, that senior would have to, out of his or her own pocket, pay for the remaining cost of all those drugs. Under this plan, a senior who has $5,000 in annual prescription drug costs, and there are a lot of them who do, would have to pay $4,200 out-of-pocket out of that $5,000 cost. Compare that to the Democratic plan, where the total cost to that senior for the $5,000 would be $1,380, a savings of $2,800 between the Republican plan and the Democratic plan. Those are the facts, and that is the difference. But we do not have a chance to put our Democratic plan for a vote here. Mr. Speaker, today, today as we speak, seniors are having to make a choice, do I buy my groceries, or do I buy my prescription drugs? Do I pay my rent, or do I buy the medication I need? We should not have them make that choice. Give seniors what they want. They want an affordable and guaranteed benefit. The Democratic plan does that; the Republican plan does not. Let us defeat this plan.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, June 21, 2002, due to business related to honoring four students in my District, I was unable to cast my floor vote on roll call numbers 246, 247, and 248. The votes I missed include roll call vote 246 on Agreeing to the Amendment; roll call vote 247 on The Motion to Recommit with Instructions; and roll call vote 248 on Passage of H.R. 4931, The Retirement Savings Security Act. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on roll call votes 246 and 247, and ``no'' on roll call vote 248.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, June 24, 2002, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall Nos. 249, 250, 251, and 252. The votes I missed include rollcall vote 249, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, As Amended, H.R. 3937; rollcall vote 250, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, As Amended, H.R. 3786; rollcall vote 251, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, H.R. 3971; and rollcall vote 252, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, As Amended, H. J. Res. 95. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 249, 250, 251, and 252.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, June 17, 2002, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall numbers 230, 231, and 232. The votes I missed include rollcall vote 230 on Approving the Journal; rollcall vote 231 on Suspending the Rules and Agreeing to H. Con. Res. 415, Recognizing National Homeownership Month and the importance of homeownership in the United States; and rollcall vote 232 on Suspending the Rules and Agreeing to H. Con. Res. 340, Supporting the goals and ideals of Meningitis Awareness Month. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 230, 231, and 232.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I want to explain the disconnect.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. What are we doing today? As is often the case, I think most people watching this are probably pretty confused. What are we doing today? Well, we have a bill from the majority today before us that would cost, during its first 10 years in effect, about $460 billion. But, it will not take effect for the next 7 years, so none of the benefits that are claimed under this marriage penalty protection take effect until 2011. So nothing goes to anybody today. But we are planning today to commit $460 billion starting in 2011, even when today we know we have a $100 billion deficit in today's, this year's, budget, and we know that every single dime out of the Social Security trust fund and the Medicare trust fund today, this year, is being used to pay for things that we do not have money to pay for yet because we have a $100 billion deficit. What else are we doing today? Well, Democrats today stood up and introduced their prescription drug plan for seniors under Medicare, one that would provide seniors, every senior, not just certain seniors, every senior, a prescription drug policy under Medicare. Where are our priorities? What should we be doing? The American people want us to take care of the fear of terrorism. Let us invest money there. The American people say it is about time that seniors did not have to choose between their rent and their medicine, between their food and their medicine. Let us give them this prescription drug program that they need. It would cost less than this particular bill. Let us give seniors security, knowing that we are going to protect and strengthen Social Security into the future, which we could do if we did not pass this bill. But no, we are not doing that. We are committing monies into the future knowing that right now, today, we are already in deficit spending. Where is the accountability? A year ago the President said, I can pass a tax cut bill and not touch a dime out of Social Security or Medicare trust fund money. Today, we are using every single cent of it, and now we want to commit even more of it. Where are we going? Where are our priorities? How do we explain this to the American people? We must be accountable. We must have fiscal discipline. We cannot continue to say that we will let the national debt, which is close to $6 trillion, grow. We had a plan 3 years ago that would actually have eliminated that debt. Today, under the President's budget, it grows. And now, with this it grows even further. How can we talk about families and the marriage penalty relief when, in fact, what we are doing with this bill is actually causing family penalty, not relief. Why? Because we take out one of these things, one of these things that too often Americans use and use unwisely. With the government credit card you can say, I can give you marriage penalty relief, not today, in about 7 years, and it is going to cost us half a trillion dollars, but that is okay, I have this. Who pays? We are mortgaging our children's future, because they will have to pay for it. We are mortgaging our seniors' lives, because we can give them prescription drugs, and we are mortgaging seniors today because they can say, I have Social Security, but I want to make sure my children have it as well. Mr. Speaker, let us get our priorities straight and support this bill and vote for the substitute.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. I would like to thank him and, of course, the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), and certainly, of course, the chairman of the subcommittee in question here, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), for their leadership. I know that I have had several opportunities working with the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) to try to address some of the issues that affect the Korean peninsula, both South Korea and North Korea, and certainly we can turn to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) always as a voice and a leader on issues affecting the Korean people. As two individuals who hail from southern California and with large populations of Americans of Korean descent, I think we both understand the plight of those individuals who are seeking freedom in the Korean peninsula, and we do everything we can to try to address that concern, because whether you are of Korean ancestry or if you happen to hail from this country from generations back, I think we all understand that freedom and democracy are what we would all love to leave as a legacy to our kids. I, too, rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 213, regarding North Korean refugees in China. It appears that we continue to see the numbers grow of North Koreans who are fleeing their country, many of whom have ended up in China. Some 312 or so have ended up in South Korea in the last several years, they have defected to South Korea, and we have seen more and more of these incidents occurring where individuals who are fleeing North Korea, in the case of their departure to China, are being returned by China to North Korea without knowing fully well what the consequences might be upon their return. An estimated 150,000 to 300,000 North Koreans currently are living without status in China. We are aware of the treaty that China has with North Korea which allows China to view these individuals as undocumented immigrants or economic migrants, and, as a result, to send them back to North Korea, and, again, without any consideration for the consequences of that repatriation. We have to acknowledge that in the case of North Korea, there are massive food shortages in that country. Right now we are told that North Korea cannot feed about one-third of its people, so clearly there are cases for economic migrants who do depart from North Korea. But the cases that we have seen go far beyond those who are leaving only for economic reasons. We know that there are, in many cases, straight and very clear political reasons for many of these individuals leaving, and in some cases religious persecution as well. Yet, with all of that, the Chinese Government refuses to permit the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR, to evaluate North Korean refugees in China to determine whether or not they deserve political asylum. Under Chinese law, in fact, anyone aiding a fleeing North Korean is subject to a fine, and there is word that bounties are paid to Chinese citizens who turn in North Koreans to the Chinese authorities. The purpose of this resolution is twofold, I believe. First, under both international and humanitarian grounds, we should be calling on China to provide North Koreans whose asylum requests have been rejected with the right to have the rejection reviewed by international authorities prior to deportation of these North Koreans back to their homeland. That is something that they would be obliged to provide to any individual who claims refugee status under the United Nations 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees and as it has been modified in 1967 through the Protocol relating to the status of refugees. The second purpose is to urge China to allow the UNHCR to have access to all North Korean refugees who reside in China. I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 213 to recognize the plight of refugees who are in China from North Korea who are trying to flee political and religious suppression and persecution, and know fully well that we can have a voice in trying to aid these individuals towards democracy and liberty. I applaud the chairman for this effort to bring this to the floor; I certainly applaud our ranking member for his cooperation and support of this resolution; and mostly I support and want to applaud the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, for his valiant efforts, not just today, but in the past, to aid the Korean peninsula in moving forward toward democracy.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I think my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), has said it well. We do have to put everything in context and we have to understand what we are talking about. Right now is should we have cut the estate tax, a tax that of the 270 million Americans will benefit about 33,000 Americans and that estate of those Americans. So that is slightly under 2 percent. It is about a percent and a half of all Americans get taxed under the estate tax. And this bill, which is predicted to cost $100 billion over 10 years, if you take it out to those 10 years, when it is fully phased in, the cost is about $100 billion per year. So over the second decade you are looking at about a trillion dollars when you factor in the interest that we have to pay for that. Of about $100 billion a year, a trillion dollars over a decade in costs. So let us put that in context. Today, unlike a year ago when we were being told we would have surpluses in our budget as far as the eye can see, today we have a budget deficit of something around $100 billion. Today what are we doing to pay that $100 billion that we do not have so we can have the government operating? We are using this. The government credit card. Where are we getting the money to pay the cost of that credit card and the interest on that government credit card? The Social Security trust fund and the Medicare trust fund. What is that trust fund money supposed to be used for? For those who are retiring so they can get Social Security and Medicare. What happens when you use the Social Security trust fund monies and the Medicare trust fund monies for things other than Social Security and Medicare? You have got to find money in the future to pay the cost of Social Security retirement and Medicare benefits that you no longer have. What else happens? In the future you will have to cut things like education, health care, housing because you do not have the money any more. So let us put everything in perspective here. When we talk about the estate tax cut and we talk about kids and seniors on Social Security and seniors needing prescription drug coverage which they do not have right now under Medicare, what is their priority? Do you want to pay down the debt? The President said last year we could pass our tax cut of last year and still pay down the debt. Well, today we not only cannot pay down the debt nor the interest on that debt, but it is going to grow. And so I look at our budget for education, which this year is about $51 billion. We are going to spend more on giving 30,000 of the wealthiest Americans a tax cut than giving the 45 million kids in our public schools any additional money in education. That is not a priority in my book. And that is why you should support the Pomeroy substitute because what the Pomeroy substitute says is help the family farm, help the small business. We can do that and still make sure everyone has shared sacrifice. Vote for the substitute and vote against the bill.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, May 22, 2002, and Thursday, May 23, 2002, I was unavoidably detained, and therefore unable to cast my floor vote on two procedural votes. The votes I missed include rollcall votes 196 and 197, both Motions that the Committee Rise on the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 196 and 197.